ABRAHAM NATHANIEL ADDANKI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

The re-assessment order is bad in law as it violated the law and procedures prescribed U/s. 144B, 147, 147 and 149 of the Act.

Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his original return of income for AY 2016-17 on 23/02/2017, declaring an income of Rs.4,91,710/- and agricultural income of Rs.72,500/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS to verify “exempt income”.

Original assessment was framed by the AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 27/11/2018, wherein the returned income of the assessee was accepted as such.

Thereafter, the AO based on information received from ITO (I&CI)- 4, Hyderabad that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.1,62,50,500/- in his bank account No.403151634 maintained with Indian Bank, Kakateeya Nagar, i.e., a bank account which was not disclosed by him in his return of income, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 31/03/2021 was duly served upon the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed his return of income on 31/05/2021, which, however, was not e-verified by him and resultantly was considered as invalid.

On a perusal of the record, we find that the AO observed that the assessee during the subject year had made cash deposits of Rs.1,62,50,500/- in his joint Account No. 403151634 held with his son in Indian Bank, Kakatiya Nagar, which was not disclosed by him in his original assessment proceedings. On further verification, the AO observed that the aforesaid cash deposit of Rs.1,62,50,500/- was made in the aforementioned bank account in two tranches, viz., (i) on 02/01/2016: Rs.1,52,50,000/-; and (ii) on 06/04/2015: Rs.10,00,000/-. As the explanation of the assessee regarding the source of the aforesaid cash deposits did not find favour with the AO, therefore, he made an addition of the same by treating it as having been sourced out of the assessee’s unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.

Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022 after making the aforesaid additions, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.1,68,00,508/- along with agricultural income of Rs.72,500/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee, despite having been afforded 4 opportunities, had failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, the latter holding a conviction that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, dismissed the same on the said count itself.

The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us.

Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that the same involved a delay of 41 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the 6 Abraham Nathaniel Addanki vs. ITO Ld. AR submitted that the same had crept in for the reason that the assessee, who is octogenarian, aged more than 80 years, was suffering with acute diabetes and Hypertension, had suffered the unfortunate death of his married daughter, who had committed suicide, leaving behind three children, during the relevant point of time was taken unwell and had remained admitted with Renova Century Hospital, Hyderabad. The Ld. AR to buttress her aforesaid submission had drawn our attention to the application filed by the assessee applicant seeking condonation of the delay along with an affidavit, dated 08/09/2025 and copies of the medical certificates/prescriptions. The Ld. AR submitted that as the delay in filing of the present appeal was on account of unavoidable reasons, therefore, the same in all fairness and in the interest of justice be condoned.

Per contra, Shri K. Vinoth Kanna, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr-DR”) objected to the seeking of condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee.

We have thoughtfully considered the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee and are of firm conviction that as the same had crept in because of medical ailments, which the 7 Abraham Nathaniel Addanki vs. ITO assessee was suffering during the relevant point of time, therefore, the same in all fairness merits to be condoned.

Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the Ld. AR had vehemently assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for framing the assessment vide the order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022. Elaborating on her contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as both the order under section 148A(d), dated 29/03/2023 and notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29/03/2023 had been issued by the ITO, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad, i.e., the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), therefore, the assessment on the said count cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down.

Apart from that, the Ld. AR submitted that thought the AO had framed the assessment vide his order under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022, but thereafter, the assessee had been visited with another set of assessment order passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 17/02/2024, wherein the latter order is based on the order passed under section 148A(d), dated 29/03/2023 and notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29/03/2023. Elaborating further, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has e-filed an appeal against the second set of assessment 8 Abraham Nathaniel Addanki vs. ITO 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 17/02/2024 before the CIT(A) on 06/01/2026, which is pending for adjudication as on date.

We have thoughtfully considered the facts involved in the present case. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) vide his impugned order, dated 20/03/2025 has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for the stand alone reason that the assessee had failed to prosecute the appeal. We find that the CIT(A) had not addressed the specific grounds of appeal based on which the impugned order of assessment was assailed by the assessee before him, i.e., both on merits and the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for reopening of the concluded assessment.

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st January, 2026.